Sorry, garyp, I don't think I can understand your point of view, as it is so foreign to my own. I don't see powerdown (as I present it and as I think Monte might [but I'm not completely sure]) as a "surrender" or "throwing up one's hands and saying there's nothing to be done." There's loads to be done (see links below). Surrendering would be just sitting around. Sitting around not powering down, but just continuing business as usual. Or believing in some technofix. Which I don't advocate.

So anyway, yeah, I guess I have to say I don't really know what you're talking about. I think we aren't talking about the same thing at all. I see loads of solutions.

Ibon wrote:Or how do you explain Americans accepting as normative the inhuman landscapes formed by suburbia or the quality of their fast foods? These are cultural values. We have dumbed down to a level of complacency where we don't analyze or question the status quo. We have become a fearful complacent electorate. What will change this? Exactly what you hinted at. But it's got to carry a far more potent punch than acid rain. Natural consequences and economic disruptions will be our greatest allies for change going forward. But for the US they will have to come as a series of blows to knock us off our arrogance and ignorance. The danger of course is that each blow from natural consequences also reinforces stupid beliefs like Christian prophecy being fulfilled. There is alot of shit that still needs to be played out here before we climb out of our ignorance and I'm not sure if future events will spark enlightenment or reinforce stupidity. The optimist in me really really really wants to believe the former.

Great post Ibon.

I too have often wondered what's become of America. Americans
seem to be taking the express train to stupidsville. I've wondered
if there aren't some sort of environmental toxins that are responsible
for the apparent dumbing down, but that's a weak excuse. It's
the culture, you're correct.

I think one thing that would really open peoples eyes to the full extent
of the ugliness of the current american sprawl landsape is to force
them to survice without a car for a few months. Try to get around
on foot or by bike or bus. It would be an eye opener. Vast
tracts of wasteland, parking lots encompassing square miles and
intersections and overpasses that are utterly hostile to pedestrians,
forcing them to guard for their life.

Our auto culture is very violent by default - getting out to the
car really makes one aware of this, IMO.

As an historian I feel I need to give a new light on the issue of what society will accept as a whole. We are all living in a consumer society where the goal is to just do that; consume. I guess this is not much news to the average citizen. It´s the conclusion about the outcome of PO that has more possibilities than our current system teaches us. To grasp that you have to imagine a society where you first and basically only goal isn´t consumtion. This is very hard as there seems to be no alternatives.

This is a fallacy which is the result of the whole modern economic paradigm. When you read the average school book on the industrial revolution you get alot of information on the struggles between the labourers and the emerging industry leaders. But the focus is on modern issues like wages, unions, safety, technical development etc.

This is not the problem at all. Differing from the few select elites in the society didn´t the pre-modern man care for the notion of the consumer man. However dangerous, badly payed or mindnumbing the modern era employment was it wasn´t that that the modern industrialist struggled with. It was the simple fact that when the pre-modern man had worked long enough to earn his daily bread he did the inconceivable for the modern man; he stopped working. Enter the consumer paradigm. Without it it´s impossible for the system to run. In a nutshell we are all brainwashed to prefer consumtion over free time. (e.g. and why we think of people without work as 'deadbeats'.)

This is critical in understanding the driving mechanism of our society. As such it also works contrary to all the doom and gloom scenarios concerning world disasters as PO. We are living in a paradigm that is feeding itself but it is in no way the natural way of life for man (nor is there any one else of course). It´s just a grand experiment which is under a major threat but it´s failure will not by all accounts be the trigger of the end of man. Just the end of man as we know him, and in the historical perspective that´s not to much to fuss about.

Scactha wrote:This is critical in understanding the driving mechanism of our society. As such it also works contrary to all the doom and gloom scenarios concerning world disasters as PO. We are living in a paradigm that is feeding itself but it is in no way the natural way of life for man (nor is there any one else of course). It´s just a grand experiment which is under a major threat but it´s failure will not by all accounts be the trigger of the end of man. Just the end of man as we know him, and in the historical perspective that´s not to much to fuss about.

Good points but I think there is something your missing. The elite in America are fussing about this though because if the masses of Americans switch off their consumption and stop sleepwalking to the mall they may just wake up and demand something more. The desperation to keep the oil running at all costs is about something more than stabilizing our energy supply. It is about stabilizing the citizenry. It is about keeping this non negotiable way of life going where the citizenry doesn't question and doesn't think. Why are the elite so afraid of powering down? For reasons you touch upon on your post, that we are brainwashed that consumption is better than free time. Free time just might pop you awake. You remember the old cold war joke the Russians used to say about Americans. In America you have freedom to choose, between Visa, Masters Card and American Express. The fourth choice, not buying, not consuming, not overworking, is not an option. We have destroyed a big chunk of the wonderful social capital that America had 50 years ago. Small town centers, local economies, community, a slower pace of life.

AS you say it will be the end of man as we know him, the end of Consumption Man. All well and good, the problem is not so much this end and the transition that will come as much as the RESISTANCE to this transition which will cause the suffering and doom scenarios we sometimes obsess over. There really and truely is a powerful set of forces in our government resisting this and desperate to create wars and suffering and do anything possible to keep Consumption Man alive.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn't actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn't have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era - marketing

Or this

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants

This is one of the main reasons I took my two daughters out of school and we home schooled and travelled to Nepal , India and Thailand in 2004-2005....to show them life in villages where consumption wasn't king and where people weren't hammered this message on a constant 24 hour basis.

Ibon wrote: Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn't have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era - marketing[/i]

In the post-peak oil world, I think "advertising" to create demand, rather than provide a necessary service, will have to be eliminated. Competition will come from quality and reputation for service, not price or quantity.

Afterall, advertising, as we see it today, grew out of a need to create demand for the prolific factory production that was piling up in the warehouses. Today, if we can't sell something fast enough by advertising, we pay the producer to not make it, i.e., like subsidies for corn, soil bank, etc.

A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."

garyp wrote:There are too many of us, too interconnected, for the idea of going off to your retreat in the country

I don't think many here advocate that, if, by that, you mean isolation.

garyp wrote:As others have pointed out, chief problems are population levels; oil used in transportation; oil used in food production; lack of self sufficiency in the population and consequent level of resource usage. Each of these COULD be addressed, but it requires imagination to shape a solution that could work.

It can only be addressed by unacceptable solutions. You mentioned big business as needing to address the problem (along with governments) but big business is part of the problem. Who is going to willingly go out of business? The bottom line is: growth is unsustainable. That's a pretty big realisation to take on board.

garyp wrote:It requires a step outside the comfort zone of the doomers though.

If you think the collapse of society is a comfort zone, you've got a weird way of looking at the world.

Yes, there are solutions that could work, but only if everyone buys into them and we start working towards a sustainable society now (and that means no growth). You don't expect that to happen and neither do I. If it doesn't, collapse is inevitable. It's just a matter of when.

Ludi wrote:Sorry, garyp, I don't think I can understand your point of view, as it is so foreign to my own. I don't see powerdown (as I present it and as I think Monte might [but I'm not completely sure]) as a "surrender" or "throwing up one's hands and saying there's nothing to be done." There's loads to be done (see links below). Surrendering would be just sitting around. Sitting around not powering down, but just continuing business as usual. Or believing in some technofix. Which I don't advocate.

So anyway, yeah, I guess I have to say I don't really know what you're talking about. I think we aren't talking about the same thing at all. I see loads of solutions.

Sounds like your right, our world views are too different for this to work as a communication mechanism.

I think, by reading your words, that you believe that 'powerdown' is the 'solution' to peak oil, and that you expect it to be widely accepted by the population. Not quite sure it you expect the same number of people as currently alive to still be alive in this world, or if like MonteQuest you expect "some die-off (elderly and infirm)". Either way, I think where we diverge is in the actions and reactions of what gets called 'the general public'.

I think you suggest that they will rationally accept a world of substanically lower standards of living, no long distance travel and constant physical effort.

I can't.

As I've suggested, every fibre of my being thinks your message, your solution route, is simply one that cannot and will not be accepted by 'the general public'. To point to an example, back in the 70s there was a long running, much loved TV series series here called "The Good Life". The protagonists decided on a going for a self sufficient life in their suburban home. They were shown as likable, happy, not stressed, and living 'the good life', in contrast to their neighbours who were consumerist, stressed and unhappy. Even given this, which was an extended marketing drive for the benefits of a sustainable lifestyle, there was no visible impact on the public or societys' views. People didn't suddenly smack themselves on the head and follow the example - they went instead searching for even more convenience foods, even higher stressed lifestyles.

I cannot see any better acceptance in a world where liquid fuels are limited and systems start to fracture. I think its much more likely that people will seek to maintain their lifestyles by taking from others. When food systems start collapsing I'd expect them to violently lash out. At the same time I'd expect governments to seek to manage the situation the only way they know how, more control and a tighter squeezing of the fist.

To me this scenario, this route, is much more likely than the rational one - and its a scenario in which there are no escapes, no safe bolt holes for those looking for a permaculture/die off lifestyle. It might be the mob, it might be the government - but it will impinge, distrupt and eventually destroy such a route.

That's part of the reason why I look for ways in which positive actions by 'the general public' on 'acceptable problems' can improve matters - enlightened self interest. I cannot see any way in which I could follow the route you suggest and still survive. If that means 'techno fixes' or forming different messages that actually can have impact on the grand scale of the problem - so be it. The determinate isn't what I would like, its what will work in the real world.

To my view of it, anything else is a surrender and an expectation that you will not survive. I don't like the sound of that world.

Ibon wrote:AS you say it will be the end of man as we know him, the end of Consumption Man. All well and good, the problem is not so much this end and the transition that will come as much as the RESISTANCE to this transition which will cause the suffering and doom scenarios we sometimes obsess over. There really and truely is a powerful set of forces in our government resisting this and desperate to create wars and suffering and do anything possible to keep Consumption Man alive.

One could as easily reverse the argument. Did the transition over to Consumption Man create havoc? It was a struggle but it was nothing like the days of the great migrations that spelled doom of the Roman empire. Another time where society as men knew it 'broke down' to something 'lesser'. As you say it´s the transistion that´s the cause of worry but I don´t neccesarily belive it to be a time of revolutions. Time will tell.

All the while we have to pray that the men and women in charge have wisdom enough...forget it we´re screwed :D

garyp wrote: I think its much more likely that people will seek to maintain their lifestyles by taking from others. When food systems start collapsing I'd expect them to violently lash out. At the same time I'd expect governments to seek to manage the situation the only way they know how, more control and a tighter squeezing of the fist.To me this scenario, this route, is much more likely than the rational one - and its a scenario in which there are no escapes, no safe bolt holes for those looking for a permaculture/die off lifestyle.

More likely? It is the scenario we are on right now. Invasion of sovereign nations, the Patriot Act, loss of civil liberties, etc.

That's part of the reason why I look for ways in which positive actions by 'the general public' on 'acceptable problems' can improve matters - enlightened self interest. I cannot see any way in which I could follow the route you suggest and still survive. If that means 'techno fixes' or forming different messages that actually can have impact on the grand scale of the problem - so be it. The determinate isn't what I would like, its what will work in the real world.

Oh, but it is what you want. To maintain the status quo. An attempt at techno-fixes just kicks the can down the road making the correction that much worse when it comes. Your mindset is born of a very selfish choice: "I want mine now, the hell with future generations." Techno-fixes will not work. They will not address the grand scale of the problem.

The problem being an infinite growth mindset in a finite world. Until you change that, anything else is just window dressing and selfish.

To my view of it, anything else is a surrender and an expectation that you will not survive.

Now, that, is a doomer attitude. I have no intentions whatsoever of surrendering, nor expectations of not surviving. I plan to lead the implementation of the real solutions.

garyp wrote:As I've suggested, every fibre of my being thinks your message, your solution route, is simply one that cannot and will not be accepted by 'the general public'. To point to an example, back in the 70s there was a long running, much loved TV series series here called "The Good Life". The protagonists decided on a going for a self sufficient life in their suburban home. They were shown as likable, happy, not stressed, and living 'the good life', in contrast to their neighbours who were consumerist, stressed and unhappy. Even given this, which was an extended marketing drive for the benefits of a sustainable lifestyle, there was no visible impact on the public or societys' views. People didn't suddenly smack themselves on the head and follow the example - they went instead searching for even more convenience foods, even higher stressed lifestyles.

Following the end of the geopolitical oil crisis of the 70's were the 80's of abundant cheap energy and Reaganomics that lulled us back to sleep. Then came the digital age where the illusion of technology advancing ever forward along with continued cheap energy further locked in the consumer paradigm. Corporate advertisement spending billions hired by a batallion of behavioural psychologists to create needs for our consumer thirst. And you present "The Good Life" as a competition to this world view? How could this TV show compete against the commercials that were aired throughout the series? It is true that all the alternative lifestyle experiments didn't get far against the shining dream of modern digital consumerism and communes took on the image of old hippies walking around in burlap bags lost in a hopeless idealism.

What we have today is not comparable. We are facing a crisis imposed by reality. It is not idealogically driven at its source although the elite (corporate and government) are trying desperately to keep a dying idealogy going. But there is hope and I am not so pessimistic as you are that society at large cannot organize itself and power down. Your argument that it didn't work in the 70's is not valid for the reasons given above. That it can work during the next 2 decades is feasible because reality will impose itself unrelentlessly. What is the backdrop today that can support a shift toward sustainability? An overpopulated planet with a convergence of serious issues like global warming, peak oil, environmental tipping points, geopolitical tensions etc. America, still percieved as strong and the world model of modernity in the 70's has lost this image. Today our suburbia and sprawl and auto dependent culture and gluttonous consumerism is not a model the world looks to as a bright and hopeful future. Just look at our precarious economy with debt reaching a number of zeros that usually are reserved for measuring interplanetary distances. I would even go so far to say that underneath all the blatant parasitic consumerism the majority of Americans feel this in their bones. The elite exploit this unease and our culture, feeling their way of life threatened is very vulnerable to manipulation by spin doctors creating fear. Terrorists have become the modern day bogeyman but they are a physical manifestation of everything unsustainable about our way of life. Is it a coincidence that the terrorists of today come from the part of the planet that strategically holds the largest remaining reserves of fossil fuels? It's a bitter pill to swallow but we have danced our part and have sown the seeds of this terrorism being directed towards us.

We may all be surprised how effective reality can be in cultural transformation. But there are some hard knocks to get us there as it will have to literally be beaten into us by the natural consequences. Middle eastern terrorists will look harmless next to the consequences of peak oil and what mother nature has in store for us. Oh yeah, I forgot, terrorism is already one of those consequences. Just the opening act.

I think one thing pple are taking out of the equations here is Human Nature. Pple will do what strikes them at that time. They could have a well thought out plan and 1 incident could change every thing.

Some pple are lazy, some are overacheivers. Some are isolationist and some are so co-dependent on others or groups thay cant funcion without them. And everrything inbetween.

Dont forget panic. Fear, greed etc...Human emotions. They will conquer any rational thinking in a new york minute. Consider how the other guy is thinkng and feeling as well. Youdont know what emotional state any guy you come across will be. Can you take that chance.

garyp wrote:I think, by reading your words, that you believe that 'powerdown' is the 'solution' to peak oil, and that you expect it to be widely accepted by the population.

I expect it to be accepted if presented in a positive way and on a wide scale, which it currently isn't. Many won't accept it (such as yourself) but I really have no way of dealing meaningfully with those people, as our worldviews are too foreign. Being mentally ill, I don't understand people who make no attempt to get a grip on reality. I have to spend such an inordinate effort trying to understand reality, I can't share much in common with those who don't bother to.

garyp wrote: Not quite sure it you expect the same number of people as currently alive to still be alive in this world, or if like MonteQuest you expect "some die-off (elderly and infirm)".

No, unfortunately I expect the poor to continue dying as they currently do, and for more people to join the ranks of the poor.

garyp wrote:Either way, I think where we diverge is in the actions and reactions of what gets called 'the general public'.That's part of the reason why I look for ways in which positive actions by 'the general public' on 'acceptable problems' can improve matters - enlightened self interest. I cannot see any way in which I could follow the route you suggest and still survive. If that means 'techno fixes' or forming different messages that actually can have impact on the grand scale of the problem - so be it. The determinate isn't what I would like, its what will work in the real world.

Why is the nonacceptance of a little understood set of ideas by the mass of currently ignorant people (including, I'm assuming, yourself, as I have no idea what "route" you're referring to above - what, enjoying more leisure time, growing one's own food, forming communities....?) MY "surrender"? Like Monte, I try to educate others about these solutions which are currently being implemented by some people. The fact that they are not yet implemented widescale isn't MY "surrender." That's idiotic. We do not have the advertising budget of the consumer culture.

Why are you bitching about other people's solutions? What solutions are YOU offering? What are these "positive actions by the general public" you refer to?

If you don't like our solutions, get off your FAT ASS and implement ones you like. Or stop bitching.

garyp wrote:To my view of it, anything else is a surrender and an expectation that you will not survive. I don't like the sound of that world.

I don't really understand that sentence. Do you think I don't expect to survive? Or do you expect me not to survive?

Ludi wrote:Why is the nonacceptance of a little understood set of ideas by the mass of currently ignorant people (including, I'm assuming, yourself, as I have no idea what "route" you're referring to above - what, enjoying more leisure time, growing one's own food, forming communities....?) MY "surrender"? Like Monte, I try to educate others about these solutions which are currently being implemented by some people. The fact that they are not yet implemented widescale isn't MY "surrender." That's idiotic. We do not have the advertising budget of the consumer culture.

Why are you bitching about other people's solutions? What solutions are YOU offering? What are these "positive actions by the general public" you refer to?

If you don't like our solutions, get off your FAT ASS and implement ones you like. Or stop bitching.

Awesome Ludi, thats a kick ass response. Could not have said it better myself.

"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb

Ludi wrote:Why is the nonacceptance of a little understood set of ideas by the mass of currently ignorant people (including, I'm assuming, yourself, as I have no idea what "route" you're referring to above - what, enjoying more leisure time, growing one's own food, forming communities....?) MY "surrender"? Like Monte, I try to educate others about these solutions which are currently being implemented by some people. The fact that they are not yet implemented widescale isn't MY "surrender." That's idiotic. We do not have the advertising budget of the consumer culture.

Why are you bitching about other people's solutions? What solutions are YOU offering? What are these "positive actions by the general public" you refer to?

If you don't like our solutions, get off your FAT ASS and implement ones you like. Or stop bitching.

I posed the original question to see if anyone, prompted by realisation that the usual suggested solutions weren't tenable on the large scale, could identify any more workable approaches. The idea would then be to attempt to integrate these into a workable overall plan and try and get that in front of those that could make it happen.

Instead what I came across was a total inability (except for one person) to deal with the real world, instead retreating into a la la land of failed ideas and wishful thinking. People such as yourself really couldn't see the big picture, ending up in comments like "fat ass" and "stop bitching". To an extent that surprised me, but I suppose it shouldn't. After all, I'm the one saying that people will not behave rationally and will not give up on cherished ideas when put under pressure.

Ludi wrote:

garyp wrote:To my view of it, anything else is a surrender and an expectation that you will not survive. I don't like the sound of that world.

I don't really understand that sentence. Do you think I don't expect to survive? Or do you expect me not to survive?

Frankly, no.

And at heart I think you realise that your unrealistic plans will come to naught and that civilisations crashing fall will drag you with it. I'll continue to try and prevent that fall, knowing that as yet there are no other real options I can find.

garyp wrote:After all, I'm the one saying that people will not behave rationally and will not give up on cherished ideas when put under pressure.

Gary, I'm confused. Many of your posts would give an impression of your not wanting to give up on your currrent lifestyle (more or less), of not wanting to accept that a radical shift in society is needed for sustainability. And yet you accuse others of not wanting to give up their cherished ideas.

You seem to acknowledge that the "extreme" ideas that people like Richard Heinberg espouses are unrealistic because people won't accept them. But you have not offered alternatives that might be acceptable, and that will work. Or are you just offerring to be a collector of workable ideas, where you are the judge of what is aceptable?

I can't really see any solution being acceptable to most people, because zero growth would have to be incorporated into that solution. So do you think that any solution can incorporate positive growth?

garyp wrote:And at heart I think you realise that your unrealistic plans will come to naught and that civilisations crashing fall will drag you with it. I'll continue to try and prevent that fall, knowing that as yet there are no other real options I can find.

Oh my goodness, garyp. I guess all I can say is, my personal expectations for survival have little to do with Peak Oil and more to do with the fact I am a poorish person in ill health.

HOW are you trying to prevent my death?

Like I say, I so completely do not understand how you think. How you think I "retreat into wishful thinking" when I spend several hours of every day actually implementing these solutions in the real world, as well as sharing them with others. WHAT are YOU actually doing, yourself, besides criticising others and hoping for something? Garyp, what are you DOING? Do you understand the difference between DOING and HOPING? What, physically, in the real actual physical world, are you DOING?

You seem unwilling or unable to try to understand what other people are DOING and choose instead to insult them. I insulted you because, as far as I can tell, you are DOING nothing but complaining. So you are in no position to be casting insults and accusing others of being out of touch with reality. Reality is the real, physical world, not the world of hopes and dreams and wishes. Nothing happens in the real world without STARTING to happen. A movement or widescale action cannot suddenly leap into being overnight, yet you seem to believe so, as you accuse others who are actually implementing these solutions in their own lives and the lives of others of "surrender" and "retreating into wishful thinking" etc.

Please garyp, address me on my own terms, the real physical world of ACTION. What are you DOING?

When ever I have convinced people enough to read one of the peak oil books they always come back to me and say: "Where are the solutions." You can't state a problem and not provive a solution. They then say to me: "You have fallen in with a bunch stopped clock doom and gloomers who refuse to acknowledge workable solutions."

Contrary to what many think here think power down is not a workable solution. In fact it is not a solution at all. It is like saying we don't have a solution, now go kill yourself. The power down crowd as turned into a death cult combined with mad max suvivalism.

There are solutions to re-power the world without oil. I have done some research on these solutions am going to put them into a book.

Firstly, oil does not equal food. Food is energy and can really come from any energy source with the right knowhow. Fertilizer can be made with wind power by taking nitrogen out of the air. It can also be done passively by growing peanuts and hemp which produce their fertilizer direcly from the sun though a process called photo-nitrogen fixation.

Secondly, we could cut our elecrtical use in half simply by switching from AC current to DC current. AC power represents the old distributed power system of coal, nuclear, and gas plants. DC current would represent the new paradime of distrubuted wind and solar. Solar power particularly should be consumed where it is produced. Converting appliances for AC to DC involve REMOVING the power consuming AC adapters. Appliances internally already run on DC. About half the power an appliance uses is wasted by converting power form the AC grid so it be used internally as DC power. DC powed LED lights are almost 100% efficent at creating light. The power wasted on one 100watt AC bulb could light an entire neighborehood of DC LEDs.

Thirdly, we can divorce our cars and go back to walkable communities. Cars waste enormous amounts of power. Taking a car on one long trip will waste more power then your body will put out in an entire decade. It does not really take sacrifice to work where you live or live where you work. Right now the only thing that stands in most peoples way is zoning which draconianly separates residential from business and industrial. Rearanging societies living arangements does not require massive tear downs either. Nothing prevents people from turning old wearhouses in living space except zoning laws. These laws writen by politicians can be changed.

Many quite rightly say that the threat is real, and that given human nature (eg lying) it's probably much closer than thought. However by not presenting it in a way that has a credible solution that fulfils all of the above three points, those same people make it less likely that action can and will be taken.

Some believe that because of human nature, and the scale of population, the problem is in effect unsolvable. "Solutions" like powering down etc. might even enhance the problem.